>- According to AURSC, 20 million internet users can already access to
>our alternate DNS.
Prove it.
>
>- IRSC doesn't destroy anything : we just add new TLDs to legacy gTLDs,
>ccTLDs and other alternate gTLDs.
>
And presumes that your confederation is somehow 'more worthy' for the world
to use and rely on for critical DNS resolution functions than the existing
root servers, and presumes that your confereration is the only such
confederation - because any other, parallel, confederation which created a
TLD identical to one in your private universe would set up an un-resolvable
contradiction between your intersts and the interests of that other
confederation.
Conistently ignoring these issues is what makes you look silly.
>To access all that new Internet wealth, DNS servers configuration is
>EASY AND NON-DISRUPTIVE. So why don't you all test it, as users or
>providers, before judging it ???
>
Because it's not a question of whether it works or not. Technically, it'll
work (although it is likely to fail to scale if you actually get what you
seem to want, lots of users - how were you going to fund properly
provisioned root server sites, by the way?)
The real problem is that logically, and rationally, it's a stupid thing to
be doing, just to pander to your egos in supporting your creation of new
TLD's with no rational process to back up their creation and maintenance.
It's not a technical issue at its 'root'. It is one of a strange misuse of
ego-mania.
Look, if I set up a new fake root nameserver (which is all you are doing)
and put .POKEY into it, containing entries that suit me, will YOU link to
it, will you add it into your confederation?
Now - note that .POKEY already exists in your private conferated universe.
Does that modify your answer to the preceeding question?
If you won't, why won't you - why am I less worthy that you are?
>As some people from this list pointed it, we could have "created" TLDs
>on a whim, for jokes, or anything else : but we didn't.
Oh yes, you did - .POKEY is the signature example of precisely this being
done. And Adam is even *proud* of it (check his AURSC web site). I'm sure
you'll remove some in the future on just such a whim as well.
>
>All TLDs are administered/created/replaced under consensus with
>"neighbor nets" partners. Uncentral administration, as the Internet as a
>whole should be managed, on a bottom-up basis...
>
It can be, with ONE SINGLE EXCEPTION, which is the root servers. And they
HAVE to be centrally managed in terms of decision making processes, because
although user expansion of the DNS tree happens at the leaves, all DNS
accesses originate from the root of the tree, and it has to be the same
tree, so that everything works as it should.
Precisely who (real people, email addresses etc pls) manage the process of
that "consensus" ?How were they chosen? How are they removed if they
misbehave? What is their code of conduct and where is it documented?
It's impossible not to know about Adam Todd (to readers of this list at
least), but precisely who else *is* the AURSC? I didn't vote for 'em...
...S
---
Simon Hackett, Technical Director, Internode Systems Pty Ltd
31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: simon&#167;internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net
Phone: +61-8-8223-2999 Fax: +61-8-8223-1777